engaging ph.d. students: investigating the role of ... · hence, it can be implied that ph.d....

Engaging Ph.D. Students: Investigating the Role of

Supervisor Support and Psychological Capital in a

Mediated Model

Umair Ahmed1

, Waheed Ali Umrani2, Munwar Hussain Pahi

1, Syed Mir Muhammad Shah

2

1. School of Business Management, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia 2. Sukkur Institute of Business Administration, Sindh, Pakistan

(Received: November 13, 2016; Revised: March 25, 2017; Accepted: April 5, 2017)

Abstract

Organizational scholars have empirically outlined the significance of support

features and psychological capital on individual outcomes. In the present study, we

attempted to address the dearth of research on Ph.D. students’ engagement via

empirically testing the crucial role of supervisor support and psychological capital.

A total of 125 Ph.D. students of 11 different nationalities were recruited from a

public university in Malaysia. The application of structural equation modeling to test

the mediated model revealed that research supervisor’s support positively enhanced

Ph.D. students’ academic psychological capital. Accordingly, the study also found a

positive relationship between academic psychological capital and Ph.D. students’

engagement. Notably, the study reported academic psychological capital positively

mediated the relationship between supervisor support and Ph.D. students’

engagement. The study has addressed the research gap with critical findings

pertaining to how students’ psychological capital can be of prominent significance

for Ph.D. students’ well-being. Contributions and implications of the study are

outlined with reference to how supervisor support can foster Ph.D. students’

academic psychological capital and thereupon their engagement.

Keywords

Academic psychological capital, Engagement, Ph.D. studies, Supervisor support,

Mediation.

Corresponding Author, Email: [email protected]

Iranian Journal of Management Studies (IJMS) http://ijms.ut.ac.ir/

Vol. 10, No. 2, Spring 2017 Print ISSN: 2008-7055

pp. 283- 306 Online ISSN: 2345-3745

DOI: 10.22059/ijms.2017.220219.672364

284 (IJMS) Vol. 10, No. 2, Spring 2017

Introduction

With accelerating academic demands, the optimization of students’

academic success is becoming a challenge for authorities in academia.

Henceforth, the need to understand and explore how students’

behavior and outcomes could be enhanced is becoming critical day by

day. Importantly, unlike other conventional degree programs offered

at the university level, Ph.D. study is very unique as it involves

extensive research and development under the supervision of an

expert in the area. Evidence pertaining to lack of students’

engagement has underlined that students are not bringing that needed

energy, vigor, and absorption in their studies (Hannon & D’Netto,

2007; Pontius & Harper, 2006; Adams et al., 1996). As a result, they

are found expressing low connectivity with learning. Similarly,

although limited, the evidence is available suggesting poor

engagement levels among Ph.D. students and recommending for

addressing the issue (Cardona, 2013).

Notably, studies have emphasized on the prominent role of

supervisor support and psychological capital on individual behaviors

and work outcomes (Caesens & Stinglhamber, 2014; Shanock &

Eisenberger, 2006; Wilks & Spivey, 2010). In parallel, past studies

have also highlighted the considerable role of such factors for

harnessing students’ academic behaviors. Yet, there is a scarcity of

studies on features and the considerable role of healthy supervisor

support and academic psychological capital of Ph.D. students.

Additionally, since Ph.D. degree is very unique in nature compared to

other university degrees, the current study has critically investigated

how supervisor support is crucial for Ph.D. students in enhancing their

academic psychological capital and engagement in a mediated model.

The present study hence enriches the literature in three dimensions.

At first, the study outlines the significance of supervisor support for

harnessing psychological well-being of individuals followed by the

impact of academic psychological capital on Ph.D. students’

engagement. In addition, theoretically and practically, the study has

explored the mediation of academic psychological capital in the

supervisor support and Ph.D. student engagement relationship.

Engaging Ph.D. Students: Investigating the Role of Supervisor Support and … 285

Literature Review

Student Engagement

It has not been more than 25 years since academicians started talking

about student engagement (Christenson et al., 2012). Engagement is

viewed more than just the engaged time in study as Finn (1989)

suggests that it is a multidimensional component comprising of an

individual’s emotion, behavior and approach towards learning

whereby, a student actively involves himself in the course or

programme related activities. Rothbard (2001) has explained

engagement as a psychological connection. Similarly, Schaufeli,

Salanova, González-Romá, and Bakker (2002) have suggested that

engagement is a healthy and positive work-concerning state of mind

which generally comprises of vigor, dedication and absorption.

Engagement is a positive antithesis of negative work aspects like

burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 2008). The authors have further stated that

individuals’ engagement with their tasks showcases their bringing

energy, involvement and efficacy.

In connection to academics, the definition by Lamborn, Newmann,

and Wehlage (1992) defines student engagement as “psychological

investment in learning, comprehension and mastering the knowledge,

skills, and crafts necessary” (p. 12). Hence, for students the concept

can be implied as the extent to which a student is psychologically

connected, physically committed, and energetic about what they are

involved in learning. Review of popular studies on academics

indicates several factors influencing student engagement like teacher

behavior (Skinner & Belmont, 1993), classroom climate (Reyes et al.,

2012), achievements (Denny, 2013), and instruction aspects (Dreher,

2013). Although engagement is a psychological component connected

with well-being, these studies have highlighted that just like other

positive outcomes, student engagement can also be influenced through

numerous external components.

Supervisor Support and Ph.D. Studies

Importantly, Ph.D. or doctoral study is entirely a different level of

education (Phillips & Pugh, 2010), therefore, it involves a variety of


different components which are unique to conventional degree

programs. For instance, Finn (2005) states that Ph.D. study is an

entirely research based degree program whereby the student works

under the supervision of an expert, generally referred as a supervisor.

The author further states that unlike other degree programs, Ph.D.

mainly, holds no specific curriculum and the researchers/Ph.D.

Students have to work under the assistance of their respective

supervisors and contribute to a mutually agreed body of knowledge.

This, in a way, is similar to working in a company and being

supervised by a specialist to achieve certain tasks and objectives.

Delany (2008) underlines that Ph.D. research can be viewed as an

apprenticeship program whereby a student enrolls to work on a

specified area or topic under the supervision of a seasoned academic

scholar, known as the doctoral/research supervisor.

Caesens and Stinglhamber (2014) in their study on Ph.D. students

have reported that Ph.D. students are recruited by universities mainly

in the capacity of research assistants and are expected to work in close

connection with their assigned supervisors. Therein, the supervisor’s

support and assistance plays a critical role towards the final outcomes.

Hence, it can be implied that Ph.D. research journey is more similar to

formal work procedures.

Review by Vilkinas (2002) suggests that in this challenging and

rapidly evolving academic environment, the role of a Ph.D. supervisor

is becoming more of a manager. By definition, a Ph.D. research

supervisor is an assigned university staff member (mainly a professor

in the subject area), responsible to guide the Ph.D. student(s) towards

acquiring knowledge and learning tools, techniques and

methodologies to effectively conduct research on a specific topic

(Byrge, 2003). Based on this definition, Ph.D. supervisor support

refers to the level of support and assistance a Ph.D. student receives

from the Ph.D. supervisor he/she is assigned to.

Supervisor Support and Ph.D. Students’ Engagement

Since the concept of engagement is not very old (Shuck & Wollard,

2010), it is yet to be studied extensively in different aspects.


Supervisor support is generally termed as a job resource (Demerouti et

al., 2001) in the engagement literatures. Conservation of Resources

Theory by Hobfoll (1989) explains how people recognize and

accumulate resources which help them to foster their well-being.

Based on this theory, this research study aimed to examine how

supervisor support acts as a resource to influence Ph.D. students’

psychological capital and engagement. Precisely, since this research

aimed to investigate Ph.D. students’ engagement, there exists a severe

paucity of empirical research on the topic. Marsh, Rowe and Martin

(2002) have stated that there is very little known regarding Ph.D.

students and the quality of research supervision that they receive.

Study by Caesens and Stinglhamber (2014) is the only known study

that empirically tested the impact of supervisor support on the job

satisfaction through mediation of engagement on 425 Ph.D. students

of a Belgian university. The study found that supervisor’s support

significantly enhanced Ph.D. students’ engagement. Caesens and

Stinglhamber (2014) have also indicated the severe paucity of

research on the topic and have forwarded recommendations for further

study on the topic in different settings. Henceforth, this led to the need

for further empirical attention on the topic. Notably, it became also

important to explore how supervisor support and Ph.D. students’

engagement are related among students from other regions and

nationalities apart from Europe. Lee (2008), in his study, has

suggested that for a supervisor it is important that he/she resolves all

the tensions between the professional role and personal self when it

comes to guiding and supervising students for effective fulfillment of

their responsibility.

Supervisor Support and Academic Psychological Capital

Psychological capital in the engagement literatures is often denoted as

“personal resources which refer to positive evaluations relating to a

person’s view of its potential and ability to responsively manage and

impact on their environment” (Hobfoll et al., 2003). Similar to

supervisor support, psychological capital can also be understood

through Conservation of Resources theory as to how it can enhance


individual engagement levels. Psychological capital primarily

comprises of self-efficacy and resilience (Luthans et al., 2007), which

outlines the confidence of individuals in their abilities (self-efficacy)

to strive for better outcomes and withstand any problems and

difficulties with sustenance to move ahead (resilience) to achieve

success (Luthans et al., 2007, p.3).

Although there is little known in terms of relationship between

supervisor support and psychological capital, yet some references

could be traced. Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli

(2007) proposed that resources and support factors like supervisor

support can enhance individual psychological capital like self-efficacy

and resilience. In their subsequent study, Xanthopoulout et al. (2009),

in a mediation model empirically tested and found that supervisor

coaching did positively influenced psychological capital of the Greek

workers. Accordingly, Gibson, Grey and Hastings (2009), in their

study on therapists working in ABA schools, found that supervisor

support positively influenced therapists’ self-efficacy. Similarly, the

study by Wilks and Spivey (2010) on undergraduate students in USA

found a significant positive impact of social support features on

academic resilience. The study also concluded that academic

resilience is important for students to exert responsive behaviors at

work. Shanock and Eisenberger (2006) have outlined that positive

perception about supervisor support can flourish positive behaviors

and outcomes.

Notably, there exist no studies on Ph.D. students, investigating the

role of Ph.D. supervisor support on the academic psychological capital

of Ph.D. students. Yet, based on the above evidences, the research

study inferred that supervisor support will make a considerable

influence on Ph.D. students’ academic psychological capital including

academic self-efficacy and resilience.

H1. Supervisor support is positively related with Ph.D. students’

academic psychological capital.

Academic Psychological Capital and Ph.D. Students’ Engagement

As explained earlier that psychological capital comprises of self-


efficacy and resilience (Luthans et al., 2007), whereby, according to

Bandura (1977) self-efficacy refers to a “person believing in his or her

capacity to execute behaviors that are crucial for producing specific

performance outcomes”. People can outline their goals and targets that

they desire to achieve and the work of Bandura (1977) has stated that

self-efficacy can considerably facilitate the achievement of these goals

and targets. In the views of Luthans, Luthans and Luthans (2004)

people with high self-efficacy are capable of handling challenges

responsively, able to develop sincere interest in activities, and have a

momentously strong sense of commitment to their targets. Similarly,

students with higher academic self-efficacy are better learners and

achievers (McTigue et al., 2009; Zimmerman et al., 1992). Empirical

studies have indicated the significance of academic self-efficacy for

enhancing students’ academic performance (Chemers et al., 2001),

academic motivation (Schunk, 1991), and academic attainment

(Zimmerman et al., 1992).

Accordingly, academic resilience is an individual feature that helps

students to “sustain high motivation and performance regardless of

stressful events and conditions during their studies’’ (Alva, 1991,

p.19). This concept emerged back in 90s (Alva, 1991), which talked

about how students can manage to achieve better results in their

studies despite of hardships and unfavorable conditions. According to

Borman and Overman (2004), the amount of resilience in academics

varies as it depends upon the adversities a student is facing. The

authors have further stated that students who are academically

efficacious and resilient have better perception of their studies and

express greater involvement with related activities. On the contrary,

individuals with lack of academic resilience can dominantly result in

negative outcomes (Martin, 2013). Studies have empirically shown

that psychological capital can foster positive outcomes from students

(Li et al., 2014), yet there is a scarcity of research in the non-western

countries studying this relationship, particularly on the non-western

nations and Ph.D. students.

H2. Academic psychological capital is positively related with

Ph.D. student’s engagement.


Mediation of Academic Psychological Capital

The role and impact of mediators from the engagement literatures can

be viewed from studies like Salanova, Agut and Peiro (2005), that

investigated the mediation of service climate between organizational

resources and work engagement. Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti

and Schaufeli (2009), in their empirical study, found a full mediation

of psychological capitals factors between job resources including

supervisor support and employee engagement in the Greek fast food

company. The authors have argued that such support features enhance

individual psychological factors like self-efficacy which further

results in engagement.

Similarly, researches on engagement have also shown the

significant contribution of psychological capital to fostering

engagement (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009) However, the question of

how they are important for enhancing Ph.D. students’ engagement still

remains unanswered. Remarkably, Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker and

Salanova (2007), in their longitudinal study found that psychological

capital like self-efficacy mediated between task resources and

engagement. In line with this, Luthans, Youssef and Avolio (2006)

have specified that resources like supervisor support can activate an

individual’s psychological capital like self-efficacy and resilience

which in turn, may result in positive outcomes. Thus, we aimed that

sufficient supervisor support will make Ph.D. students feel efficacious

and highly resilient which in turn will enhance their psychological

well-being like engagement. These reasons led to the test of the

following hypothesis:

H3. Students’ academic psychological capital will mediate the

relationship between supervisor support and Ph.D. students’

engagement.

Methodology

Sample and Data Collection

The sample of the present study comprised of Ph.D. students enrolled

in a public university of Malaysia. One of the major reasons behind

selecting this public university was it being one of the biggest


universities in the country, hosting students from more than 50

countries across the globe. This uniqueness also facilitated getting a

diverse sample for the study. Keeping in view the idea of

generalizability of the study results, the research did not limit the

sample selection to any specific department, therefore, Ph.D. students

from all the university departments were considered. As Kahn (1990)

has explained that engagement is an individual component and also as

the study intended to examine Ph.D. students’ engagement, therefore,

the unit of analysis was kept individual.

Quantitative data were collected for the present study. Through

using self-administered technique, 263 enrolled doctoral students were

targeted through simple random sampling. In order to simplify the

sampling, Krejcie and Morgan (1970) have forwarded a table that

outlines the minimum sample size required for a study based on the

size of its target population. The table is developed through using a

formula which helps in ascertaining the minimum number of required

respondents to make generalization; the sample size for the current

study was 157. The study was carried out with cross sectional

approach whereby the data were collected over the month of February,

2016. A total of 134 responded back out of which, 9 were discarded

due to incompleteness. Details pertaining to the respondents are

presented in Table 1.

Measures

Six-item scale on supervisor support was adopted from postgraduate

research experience questionnaire (PREQ) (Ainley & Harvey-Beavis,

2000). The scale has been extensively developed to investigate Ph.D.

and similar research degree programs and experiences of the ones

enrolled in them. The scale has been responsively used in

postgraduate research studies (Cronbach alpha=0.91; Marsh et al.,

2002) which assessed the extent of supervisor support, facilitation

during difficult situations, feedback, and research support.

Accordingly, Ph.D. students’ engagement was measured through

adapting the 9-item engagement scale by Utrecht University,

popularly known as UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The UWES scale

is the most widely used and highly validated engagement scale. The


scale reported Cronbach alpha of 0.92 in a recent study (Balducci et

al., 2015). The scale comprises of items that enquired about how

energetic students felt in their Ph.D. journey, their perception of time

and meaning of the degree, their inspiration towards the studies, and

dedication and absorption in the research.

Parallel to this, psychological capital was measured through

adapting 5-item scale on academic efficacy from Patterns of Adaptive

Learning Scales (PALS), with Cronbach alpha of 0.78 (Midgley et al.,

2000), as well as adapting 6-item scale on academic resilience by

Martin and Marsh (2006), with Cronbach alpha of 0.89. All the

constructs were measured using a five point Likert scale whereby 1

denoted strongly disagree and 5 referred as strongly agree.

Results and Analysis

Table 1. Demographic information of the respondents.

Demographic

Variables Categories Frequency Percentage

Gender Female 31 24.8 Male 94 75.2

Age

< 30 14 11.2

30-40 87 69.6

41-50 23 18.4

51-60 1 0.8

Current Year of

Study

First 16 12.8

Second 47 37.6

Third 50 40

Fourth & above 12 9.6

Country

Algeria 2 1.6

Bangladesh 5 4

Indonesia 13 10.4

Iraq 7 5.6

Malaysia 21 16.8

Myanmar 8 6.4

Nigeria 25 20

Pakistan 19 15.2

Palestine 9 7.2

Thailand 8 4.8

Yemen 10 8.0

Hypothesis Testing

Structural equation modeling (Wold, 1975, 1985) was deployed to

examine the hypothesized relationships. Therein, partial least squares


(PLS) approach was applied through using Smart PLS 3.0 software

(Ringle et al., 2015) for data analysis. The approach performs

bootstrapping procedures to underline the level of significance for

loadings and paths coefficients (Hair et al., 2014; Hulland, 1999) for

the tested relationships. PLS path modeling approach has been widely

used in the academic research studies (Hair et al., 2014). The PLS

path modeling approach proceeds in two stages, popularly known as

measurement model and structural model.

Measurement Model Assessment

Prior to testing the hypothesized relationships, reliability, convergent

validity and discriminant validity were inspected. Table 2 presents

further details in this regards whereby, it shows that all the loadings

were responsively higher than nominal threshold of 0.5 (Barclay et al.,

1995; Chin, 1998). Notably, every constructs’ average variance

extracted (AVE) also exceeded the suggested threshold (Bagozzi &

Yi, 1988). Similarly, scores concerning composite reliability were also

higher than the recommended value (0.70) (Hair et al., 2013). These

scores are basically noted to assure the convergent validity and so the

results have assured its achievement. Table 2 indicates that the study

has responsively attained significant convergent reliability and scale

validity.

Table 2. Measurement model

Construct Item Loadings AVE CR

Academic efficacy

AAR2 0.679

0.559 0.792 AAR3 0.719 AAR4 0.701 AAR5 0.725

Academic resilience AC3 0.723

0.506 0.836 AC4 0.771 AC5 0.748

Supervisor support

SS1 0.626

0.574 0.889

SS2 0.833 SS3 0.818 SS4 0.762 SS5 0.715 SS6 0.773

Student engagement

SE1 0.759

0.504 0.859

SE2 0.717 SE3 0.684 SE5 0.684 SE7 0.699 SE8 0.712


Accordingly, Table 3 contains details pertaining to discriminant

validity of the present study. In the views of Fornell and Larcker

(1981), each construct should have a greater square root of AVE

compared to the correlation within and with other constructs in order

to ascertain the discriminant validity. Fornell and Cha (1994) have

also indicated the same rubrics with regards to assuring the

discriminant validity. Respectively, Table 3 shows that all the

constructs have met the criterion of discriminant validity.

Table 3. Discriminant validity

Construct 1 2 3 4

Academic efficacy 0.748

Academic resilience 0.341 0.711

Student engagement 0.466 0.470 0.710

Supervisor support 0.147 0.212 0.224 0.758 Note: Values in the bold face represent the square root of the average variance extracted.

Structural Model

Upon the achievement of significant validity and reliability for the

research model, assessment of structural model was carried out.

Therein, t-values were obtained through applying the bootstrapping

procedure with 500 samples. Below, Table 4 highlights the results of

hypotheses testing and the same is presented in Figure 1.

Table 4 and Figure 1 evidently outline a positive relationship

between supervisor support and psychological capital (β=0.257,

P<0.01). In terms of explaining variance in the academic

psychological capital, the supervisor support resulted in R-square

value of 0.51 for academic efficacy and 0.76 for academic resilience.

Accordingly, relationship between psychological capital and Ph.D.

students’ engagement also received empirically support by the

findings (β= 0.573, P<0.01, R-square 0.35), thus supporting

Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Relating to Hypothesis 3 regarding the mediation of psychological

capital between supervisor support and Ph.D. students’ engagement,

recommendations from Preacher and Hayes (2004; 2008) were

applied. Under this, bootstrapping method was executed in order to

test the indirect effects for mediation; the results in this regard were


also found positive (β= 0.147, P<0.01) along with a t-value of 3.005.

Additionally, as mentioned by Preacher and Hayes (2008) that the

indirect effect of 0.147, 95 percent Boot CI: [LL= 0.051, UL = 0.243]

should not straddle a zero hence suggesting the mediating effect.

Fig. 1. PLS output

Table 4. Results of hypotheses testing

Hypothesis Relationship Std.

Beta

Std.

Error T-Value Decision

H1

Supervisor Support ->

Academic Psychological

Capital

0.257 0.076 3.392** Supported

H2


Capital -> Student

Engagement

0.573 0.077 7.437** Supported

H3

Supervisor Support->


Capital-> Student

Engagement

0.147 0.049 3.005** Supported

**P<0.01

Discussion

The core motivation of this study was to examine the role of

supervisor support on students’ psychological capital and

consequently the impact of academic psychological capital on Ph.D.

students’ engagement. Furthermore, the paper also aimed to test the

mediating effect of academic psychological capital on the supervisor

support and Ph.D. students’ engagement relationship.

Findings of the PLS analysis have advocated support for all the

hypothesized relationships. The result for the first hypothesized

relationship (H1) has revealed supervisor support positively

influenced Ph.D. students’ academic psychological capital. The

Academic

Psychological

Capital

Supervisor

Support

Ph.D.

Students`

Engagement

R2 =0.357

β=0.257,

P<0.01

β= 0.573,

P<0.01


findings have highlighted that responsive feedback, recognition,

problem solving, review, and study support from the Ph.D. supervisor

is crucial for improving psychological well-being of the Ph.D.

students. The findings also underline that the Ph.D. students view

supervisor’s support as a critical factor in relationship with their

psychological well-being. Although no prior academic evidence

concerning Ph.D. students was found, still the findings can be seen

consistent with empirical studies conducted in the commercial sector

on general employee and supervisor relationship (Morris et al., 2008;

Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), outlining supervisor support to be

essential for boosting individual psychological capabilities for

enriched behaviors and outcomes.

The findings have led to enhance the understanding of

Conservation of Resources theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989) suggesting

that support features can act as valuable resources for doctoral

students in order to promote their well-being. The results have shown

that Ph.D. students perceived their supervisors to be supportive in

their Ph.D. studies. Likewise, the finding asserts that supervisor

support can help doctoral students feel positive about their abilities

and competencies and enables them to become mentally strong to

overcome any academic hardships and/or setbacks. These results

support the notion of Stephens et al. (2012) who indicated the

significance of supervisor support for Ph.D. students. It can also be

viewed in the light of Vilkinas (2002), whereby the author emphasized

on the central role of Ph.D. supervisors in the rapidly changing world.

Conclusively, the results suggest that universities and institutions

offering doctoral programs should ensure that supervisors are active in

assisting their Ph.D. students for enhanced psychological

resourcefulness of their students, motivating them to give their best to

their studies.

In parallel, the results of Hypothesis 2 have emphasized that

academic psychological capital can momentously enhance Ph.D.

students’ engagement. Similar to Hypothesis 1, these results have also

validated and strengthened the explanation of Conservation of

Resource theory (COR). The results have underlined that Ph.D.


students who perceived being high in psychological capital were able

to bring more connectivity, immersion, and energy into their studies,

thus, predict engagement. The finding claims that academic

psychological capital can help Ph.D. students to foster their

engagement. The results clearly advocate that academically

efficacious and resilient Ph.D. students can perform well in their

studies through boosting their engagement. Based on the empirical

findings of commercial studies (Rich et al., 2010; Chemers et al.,

2001), it can be asserted that students with higher psychological

capital can enhance their engagement which in turn will help them to

boost their performance and end results.

In connection to Hypothesis 3, the study has found significant

mediation of academic psychological capital in the supervisor support

and Ph.D. student engagement relationship. The finding is in

consonance with mediation studies of Xanthopoulou et al. (2009), and

Llorens et al. (2007) outlining that social support resources like

supervisor support can enhance individual psychological capabilities

which in turn improve engagement. In other words, Ph.D. students

receiving healthy supervisor support can showcase more engagement

which is due to the presence and result of academic psychological

capital. This, on a high note, concludes that ensuring students’

academic psychological capital is noteworthy, particularly when it

comes to addressing Ph.D. students’ engagement.

Contributions of the Study

The present study has results in numerous contributions. The study

has strengthened the engagement scale (UWES-9) (Schaufeli et al.,

2006) through sampling respondents from 11 different countries

(Table 1). This marks a notable contribution through extending the

applicability of UWES engagement scales in different countries.

Accordingly, the research has addressed notable gaps pertaining to

Ph.D. students’ engagement, particularly, the role of supervisor

support on psychological well-being, and the mediation of

psychological capital in the supervisor support and engagement

relationship among Ph.D. students.


The study results have empirically shown that receiving guidance,

academic support, recognition, and acknowledgement from the

supervisor can make Ph.D. students feel more academically

efficacious and resilient. In other words, the respondents experienced

healthy facilitation from their Ph.D. supervisors which resulted in

making them feel more skillful, competent and capable of achieving

academic milestones. In parallel, it also helped them to harness their

potential of handling academic setbacks and keep up the pace of their

studies.

Additionally, the research is one of its kind up to our knowledge,

investigating the Ph.D. supervisor support’s role in enhancing the

academic psychological capital and thereupon fostering Ph.D.

students’ engagement in a mediation framework. The study also has

made a considerable enhancement through offering empirical

confirmation on the mediating potential of psychological capital in the

relationship between social support resources like supervisor and

engagement.

Importantly, study has also extended understandings and concept of

Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) through testing the

role of resources in furthering individual well-being.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The research has concluded that supervisor support plays a critical

role in enhancing the students’ will power, and positive perception

about their abilities and potentials. Moreover, the findings have also

indicated that supervisor support can make Ph.D. students resilient by

which they are in a better position to handle tough and stressful

situations in their research journey.

The conclusion also encourages Ph.D. supervisors to realize the

importance of their role and the amount of responsibility that they

have towards their respective Ph.D. students. It also highlights the

important factor for universities to take in consideration in order to

enhance and attain the best from their Ph.D. students in terms of

research and other expected outputs. Based on the findings, it is

advisable that universities offer Ph.D. programs focusing on


cultivating healthy supervisor and student relationships. since engaged

people are better performers (Sorensen, 2013), universities and higher

education institutions need to work on finding ways to help

supervisors and Ph.D. students maintain a healthy relationship with

each other for better academic results.

Likewise, the positive result regarding the relationship between

academic psychological capital and Ph.D. students’ engagement has

also helped the current study to address important literature gaps in

this respect. Based on the statistical significance, the study

recommends educationists including Ph.D. supervisors and concerned

university officials to work on fostering such an environment that

could nourish psychological capital of the students. Byrge and Tang

(2015), and Saks (1995) have expressed that training interventions

could be responsively used to enhance psychological capital, thus, it is

recommended that training and development interventions could be

designed for supervisors, enabling them to learn and understand how

they can facilitate students’ psychological capital, and also to support

Ph.D. students in their learning of the significance, approaches, and

important tips in order to develop and maintain academic

psychological capital for effective learning and academic

performance.

Importantly, the mediation results of academic psychological

capital in the relationship between supervisor support and Ph.D.

students’ engagement is also an important element to realize its

predictive significance. Based on this, suggestions could be made for

universities and higher education institutions to realize the importance

of students’ academic psychological in fostering engagement.

Educationists, academic scholars, and research authorities should

focus on supporting students to start believing in their abilities and

potentials and to develop strong mental resilience to overcome any

obstacles in their Ph.D. studies. Conclusively, the research has

outstandingly established that supervisor support and psychological

capital are equally critical for Ph.D. students as they are for people at

work.


Limitations of the Study

It is imperative to state the limitations of the study to help future

scholars enrich their empirical attempts on the topic respectively. First

of all, the study was done with a small sample size therefore cannot be

potentially generalized across all the Ph.D. students. Moreover, the

study only focused on Ph.D. students from a public university in

Malaysia which resulted in limiting the diversity and coverage of the

target audience.

Implications for Future Research

The present study suggests further empirical investigation on how

other support resources like colleagues or institutional management

can help enhance Ph.D. students’ engagement. Accordingly, there is a

possibility of variation in engagement levels on a daily basis

(Xanthopoulou et al., 2009); hence future studies may consider

examining how engagement varies in this regard. Equally, for

generalizable results, future researchers may also consider

investigating the relationships with a wider sample. Notably, future

studies may also attempt to examine other social support resources

like colleague and top management to pinpoint any other promising

prospect for nurturing Ph.D. students’ engagement.


References

Adams, N., Cooper, G., Johnson, L., & Wojtysiak, K. (1996). Improving student engagement in learning activities. Lincolnshire, IL: Saint Xavier University (ERIC Document Reproduction ... ED 400 076).

Ainley, J., & Harvey-Beavis, A. (2000). Postgraduate research experience questionnaire. Melbourne: Graduate Careers Council of Australia.

Alva, S. A. (1991). Academic invulnerability among Mexican-American students: The importance of protective resources and appraisals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), 18-34.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.

Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 26(2), 143–149.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.

Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285-309.

Borman, G. D., & Overman, L. T. (2004). Academic resilience in mathematics among poor and minority students. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 177-195.

Byrge, C., & Tang, C. (2015). Embodied creativity training: Effects on creative self-efficacy and creative production. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 51-61.

Caesens, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 64(5), 259-267.

Cardona, J. J. (2013). Determined to succeed: Motivation towards doctoral degree completion (Doctoral dissertation). USA: The University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/99774/jraya_1.pdf?sequence=1.

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. -t., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55-64.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336.


Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of

research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer

Delany, D. (2008). A review of the literature on effective Ph.D. supervision. Trinity College, Dublin: Centre for Academic Practice and Student

Learning. Available from: http://www.tcd.ie/CAPSL/academic_practice/index.php?page=resourc

es#Supervision.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86(3), 499.

Denny, P. (2013). The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement. Proceedings from the SIGCHI conference on human factors in

computing systems.

Dreher, A. (2013). The effects of authentic based instruction on long term retention and application, student engagement, and student motivation

(Unpublished). Wichita State University.

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational

Research, 59(2), 117-142.

Finn, J. A. (2005). Getting a Ph.D.: An action plan to help you manage your research, your supervisor and your project. Oxon: Routledge.

Fornell, C., & Cha, J. (1994). Partial least squares. Advanced Methods of

Marketing Research, 407(3), 52-78.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of

Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Gibson, J. A., Grey, I. M., & Hastings, R. P. (2009). Supervisor support as a predictor of burnout and therapeutic self-efficacy in therapists

working in ABA schools. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(7), 1024-1030.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Editorial-partial least

squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1-12.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hannon, J., & D'Netto, B. (2007). Cultural diversity online: Student engagement with learning technologies. International Journal of

Educational Management, 21(5), 418-432.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513.


Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource

loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 632-643.

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic

management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic

Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and

disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-

724.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for

research activities. Educational Psychological Measurement, 30(3),

607-610.

Lamborn, S., Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1992). The significance and

sources of student engagement. In Newmann (Ed.), Student

engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-

39). New York, NY: US Educational Department of Education,

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC).

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral

research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281.

Li, B., Ma, H., Guo, Y., Xu, F., Yu, F., & Zhou, Z. (2014). Positive

psychological capital: A new approach to social support and

subjective well-being. Social Behavior and Personality: An

International Journal, 42(1), 135-144.

Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a

positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement

exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 825-841.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive

psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with

performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541-572.

Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive

psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Business

Horizons, 47(1), 45-50.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2006). Psychological capital:

Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Marsh, H. W., Rowe, K. J., & Martin, A. (2002). Ph.D. students' evaluations

of research supervision: Issues, complexities, and challenges in a

nationwide Australian experiment in benchmarking universities.

Journal of Higher Education, 73(3), 313-348.

Martin, A. J. (2013). Academic buoyancy and academic resilience:


Exploring ‘everyday’ and ‘classic’ resilience in the face of academic

adversity. School Psychology International, 34(5), 488-500.

Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its

psychological and educational correlates: A construct validity

approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 267-281.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and

engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498.

McTigue, E. M., Washburn, E. K., & Liew, J. (2009). Academic resilience and reading: Building successful readers. The Reading Teacher, 62(5),

422-432.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of

Adaptive Learning Scales. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Morris, M. W., Podolny, J., & Sullivan, B. N. (2008). Culture and coworker relations: Interpersonal patterns in American, Chinese, German, and

Spanish divisions of a global retail bank. Organization Science, 19(4), 517-532.

Phillips, E., & Pugh, D. (2010). How to get a Ph.D.: A handbook for

Students and their Supervisors. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.

Pontius, J. L., & Harper, S. R. (2006). Principles for good practice in

graduate and professional student engagement. New Directions for

Student Services, 115, 47-58.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for

estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717-731.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies

for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.

Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P.

(2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 1-

13.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. -M. (2015). SmartPLS 3.

Bönningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. Retrieved from www.smartpls.de.

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 53(3), 617-635.

Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of

engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 46(4), 655-684.

http://www.smartpls.de/


Saks, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and

mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training

and newcomer adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 211.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational

resources and work engagement to employee performance and

customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90(6), 1217-1227.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and

their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample

study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement

of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample

confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies,

3(1), 71-92.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational

Psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231.

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A

seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development

Review, 9(1), 89-110.

Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported:

Relationships with subordinates' perceived supervisor support,

perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689-695.

Sorensen, M. B. (2013). Troubling qualitative research/Troubling empathy.

In 9th International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom:

Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across

the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.

Sorenson, S. (2013). How employee engagement drives growth. Gallup

Business Journal. Source: http://businessjournal.gallup.com.

Stephens, J.P., Heaphy, E. and Dutton, J.E. (2012), High-quality

connections. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer, (Eds.), The Oxford

Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 385-399). New

York, NT: Oxford Press.

Vilkinas, T. (2002). The Ph.D. process: The supervisor as manager.

Education + Training, 44(3), 129-137.

Wilks, S. E., & Spivey, C. A. (2010). Resilience in undergraduate social


work students: Social support and adjustment to academic stress.

Social Work Education, 29(3), 276-288.

Wold, H. (1975). Path models with latent variables: The NIPALS approach.

In H. M. Blalock, A. Aganbegian, F. M. Borodkin, R. Boudon, & V.

Capecchi (Eds.), Quantitative sociology: International perspectives on

mathematical and statistical modeling (pp. 307-357). New York:

Academic Press.

Wold, H. (1985). Partial least squares. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of statistical sciences 6 (pp. 581-591). New York:

Wiley.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009).

Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of

job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183-200.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007).

The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model.

International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121-141.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-

motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs

and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal,

29(3), 663-676.

engaging ph.d. students: investigating the role of ... · hence, it can be implied that ph.d....

Documents